Slashdot Mirror
Games All Downhill Since Pong?
In a recent article Nolan Bushnell laments the current state of gaming, stating that modern games are nothing more than a "race to the bottom" resulting in complete and utter trash. In order to combat what he sees as the downward spiral in game quality he continues to work on his new dining experience uWink that features tabletop games and a "reasonably priced meal". RPS weighs in on the subject arguing that, while the unhealthy obsession with Halo 3 might be a bit misplaced, there are plenty of gems to be found amidst the flotsam and jetsam.
This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here:
HUGE SUCCESS!
See: Portal.
What metric is being used here? Fun-per-pixel? Fun-per-Hertz? I guess if you go by that standard, Pong is the best videogame ever.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
As if Pong could possibly be better than Duke Nukem Forever.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
It had great team play. It had balanced objects. It had just the right amount of speed.
It had suspension of disbelief.
I so miss it.
I have a similar view - only differing by a generation or so. I'm probably a bit younger than the author. In my very humble opinion, games have gone downhill ever since they moved from 2D to 3D. My all time favorite game is Zelda: A Link to the Past (SNES version). Ocarina of time was alright, but the games these days are just a little bit too complicated with way too much stuff going on. They're fine if you want to really get into them, but again, they are too complicated, and they just feel different.
Perhaps it's just a generation thing... you love the games you were brought up with... I'm sure that there are plenty of people who feel that games have gone downhill ever since they started using "advanced" graphics (tiles, images, etc... the stuff you see with Zelda, Donkey Kong, Mario, etc... for the SNES and NES), as opposed to a ball and some paddles...
Coming from the guy who was part of Atari AND founded Chuck E. Cheeses, it seems Bushnell is stating HIS personal goal/philosophy of gaming.
Has Mr. Bushnell played Wii? The article is pretty vague on what exactly his beef is with modern video games, but Nintendo seems to be aiming to do the same thing he is with his interactive restaurant games (minus the food of course).
"Her idea of wit is nothing more than an incisive observation humorously phrased and delivered with impeccable timing."
I find that it's hard to overstate my satisfaction. We do what we must, because we can.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
All art downhill since first cave drawing.
I mean like, how could we possibly, you know, improve on, like, the idea of art, man?
IMHO, that's the reason why games today for the most part suck.
Games these days are multimillion dollar affairs. And that's even before the movie is released. There is so much money at stake that no sane person would ever risk making a game without a market study and focus groups. Large projects demand it.
And that's the problem - innovation gets lost in that process. Put another way, innovation isn't safe.
Back In The Day(tm), it was just a couple of guys sitting around thinking up wacky ideas. Sometimes they stuck, and sometimes they didn't. If it failed, who cares? It's just a half a dozen guys that are already on the payroll. But if it worked, you could get innovation - and that made the difference. That's why guys my age sit around playing MAME and not giving a crap about Madden 07. How different could is possibly be from Madden 06?
Nolan is a product of the Golden Age. That's why he's disappointed with today's games. Innovation was the thing back then. A half a dozen mad mavericks could easily turn the world upside down with a really great idea.
Sadly, not possible today. That's why despite all the beautifully rendered cut scenes, bazillions of vertexes per second and obscene piles of money thrown at new titles these days the games are just simply missing that magic spark. And just plain fall flat for guys from our time.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
is games that have lived on because they have infinite ways of being played....
ping pong
chess
tennis
sudoko, ect
he forgot tetris... BLASPHEMY what other game do you know is able to etch its self directly into your brain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect though he is somewhat correct, a lot of the games have been utter garbage lately, although most of the bad games of the past died a quiet death to be forgotten as it should be.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Lets review.
New things are not as good as the old stuff back when they weren't as degenerate.
"reasonably priced meals"
Old fashioned entertainment
Isn't this all a little stereotypical Old Fart? i'm waiting for him to start talking about how good 70's cars were compared to today and what great artists "the Captain and tennille" were.
I think it's important to note that early generation consoles (i.e Atari 2600) cost nearly the same as those made thirty years later - about $300 MSRP (usually discounted). So in 1982 little Jimmy's mom and dad could easily be asked to spend half their mortgage payment on a new console system, plus games. In 2002 a new Xbox/PS2/GameCube was what? Less than five day's pay at minimum wage.
The relatively high price of the 2600 kept the user base pretty small. We all played them, but I bet most of us went to neighbor kids house to do it. Of course, with the video game crash 1983, a massive console glut was created....so maybe everybody's parents bought them after the crash.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
"Pong" is a little before my time, I've only got about 23 years of experience as an avid gamer. And, in my opinion, this is just bunk.
Back in the good old days? There were fantastic, innovative, fun games, and there was also immense quantities of absolute garbage.
And now? There are fantastic, innovative, fun games, and there is also immense quantities of absolute garbage.
Any claim that games were "better" in the old days is just so much nostalgia and selective memory. Think a bit harder, you'll remember those games you pirated on the C64 that were so bad that you'd spend 2 minutes waiting for the game to load and then only 30 seconds playing it before you tossed the tape back in the case.
So, great, he's a father of the industry.
Ever been to uWink, his latest idea? It's godawful. Imagine the most tired, re-tread, uninspired, and dull fare you could get from the unholy collision of an Applebees, California Pizza Kitchen, and PF Chang's. The hook? You get to use a touch screen to order your food! Wow, touch screens! You know, like you use at the airport, your ATM, the occasional gas station, and about 500,000 other places. Plus they've got incredibly dull table games... Oh, and for kicks, the touch sensors on the screen are so comically inaccurate -- so make sure to double check that you're getting what you've ordered.
The decor is kind of like chromey mid-90s meets that bar in Star Trek 3, only people look like they're having a lot less fun. Basically, imagine any "futuristic" concept hacked out by any of a dozen subpar ad agencies or architecture firms around 1997. The Century City food court is 10x more self-consciously "futuristic" in its design and seems less ridiculous.
And the last bit of fun: Anything that's actually edible on the menu will be sold out. Ditto for any beers worth drinking. So enjoy that exotic pepperoni pizza and bud light...
Nope, sorry, give me Mario Kart, Guitar Hero, GTA, Final Fantasy 4, Katamari Damacy, Civilization, X-Com, Star Control, or any other of about six dozen games that are brilliant or brilliantly fun. If I wanted to go someplace and be bored while surrounded by awful overpriced food and where touch screens pass as a killer app, I'd hang out at the airport.
I am not Herbert.
I respect Nolan for his GREAT contribution to the gaming industry, but I can't believe he said that current generation games are pure trash.
Come on, the company he founded was a great contributor to the videogame crash. The crash happened many years ago, and a phenomemon like that hasn't repeated ever since; not because there are huge budgets or people buy crap, but because there are very good games in the market. There are games with charismatic characters (Mario), cinematic experiences (Goldeneye, Metal Gear Solid), inmersive worlds (Oblivion, Zelda, Half-Life), or plain-ol fun (Wii Sports, Mario Kart, DDR, Guitar Hero, Metal Slug).
Maybe he is ranting against american game publishers like EA, Activision, that like to market the same crap season after season, giving no more entertaining value. Maybe he is too old and don't play complex games. But that is no excuse, because there are also really good indie (or indie like) games, like Every Extend, Geometry Wars, Bejeweled, Clubhouse Games, Pac Mac CE. Games that are WAY more fun than the late 70s titles.
I also been thinking that maybe he doesn't really like videogames, but he likes to make them. It has always happened, just read some interviews to game developers and they'll tell you they don't really play games. Maybe he liked the old games, closer to the heart of the beginnings of videogaming, he was a protagonist in the revolution. Right now, there is nothing, in gaming, that makes him PASSIONATE because he FEELS there hasn't been a real Paradigm Shift(TM) in the way games are made or people interact with them. I hope he is trying to say what I have just written, but the interview is very poorly done to draw any conclusions.
I only have one message to him: Mr. Bushnell, thank you, you're work has made a great impact in our lives, in ways that no one can imagine. I'm glad you are still an active innovator, I love your restaurant idea, but don't treat the gaming industry like that, please look at Wii Sports and Wii Fit and you'll really see gaming is changing for the great benefit of our glorious nation.
Where it was a bunch of pictures of a horse running? Yeah, that was the best fucking film of all time. It's just been downhill from there.
A recent study showed that if people have to wait for more than 4 s for a website to load they get bored. I had to watch a stupid advertisement for 15 s, or press a link I discovered after 4.5 s. Sorry mates, I won't see your website. This was an even more stupid and offensive way to force advertisements down my throat than those stupid popup advertisemnts you see on some websites.
-- Cheers!
There will always be people who nag about everything being better in the olden days. I didn't read the article because of the stupid advertisement, but if the guy who wrote it really thinks pong was the best game ever made I feel sorry for him. I, for one, am enjoying the torrent of new adventure games that we are experiencing at the moment a lot!
-- Cheers!
No it isn't!
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Up until a few days ago, I probably would have agreed with TFA. I played my share of console and arcade games as a kid, and a computer game here and there (I even gave WoW a shot, and it admittedly keep me going for a few months), but I just don't generally find games all that engaging. Either they're too simple and I get bored, or they're too frustrating, and I get annoyed and bored. It just feels artificial -- if I want a challenge, there are enough projects on my to-do list to keep me busy for several lifetimes, and if I want escapism, there are a lot of books. I'm not denigrating people who do like games (we all have our hobbies), I just didn't really get the draw.
But that was before a few weekends ago, when the S.O. and I were at a friend's house and saw Wii Sports in person for the first time. I'd heard of it, of course, but had never really played it. Overall, I'm not sure it'll go down in the annals of videogames as more significant than Super Mario Brothers, but maybe it should: I saw more non-gamers pick up and have a good time with that game than I've ever seen before, on any system. Lots of people who normally would have just tuned it out as annoying background noise ended up taking a turn. And perhaps more significantly, we weren't the only couple leaving that night and saying "wow, we have got to get one of those" to each other. It's a video game system that doesn't feel like a 'video game' system -- it felt like poor-man's virtual reality. And a week later, despite living with one of the most anti-video-game people I know (and at their insistence, no less), I found myself rearranging the living room furniture so that there's more room to play Wii Tennis.
As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo should let Sony and Microsoft fight over the established market: they're creating a whole new one, or at least bringing a lot of people whose last console system was an NES back into it. The major question for them is whether they're going to be able to continue to produce games that maintain the very high bar for playability and group fun that Wii Sports does (so far, most of the third-party titles we've picked up from Blockbuster have been a bit disappointing). The question of whether the Wiimote is revolutionary or just a novelty will ultimately depend on whether they can get more games that use it effectively and intuitively, instead of just using it to emulate traditional controls or as an addon, rather than the platform's core and distinguishing feature. At least in my opinion, if you play it sitting down, somebody missed the point.
I've played Halo 3, and yes, the graphics are pretty amazing (it's probably the first game I've played where the flamethrower looked borderline convincing). I suspect, based on the hardware, that the Playstation's are even more impressive. But there's nothing there that makes we want to run out and drop half a grand. (When they're selling for $100, I'll buy an XBox3 so I can play through Halo for the plot.)
Wii Sports (and the ensuing sore arm) was pretty much worth $250, just for the sake of watching people whose knee-jerk response to any console system is "I don't do video games" change their minds and start to enjoy themselves within a few seconds of handling the controller.
Games are not dead. I think that the game publishers and the hardware developers just went though a very risk-averse phase where nobody wanted to take chances, and so they ground out basically the same product, to the same audience, over and over. If you liked that product and its evolutionary improvements, it was great. But if you didn't, there could be pretty long dry spells. I'm not sure whether the Wii is the beginning of something different, or just a temporary oasis, but you'd have to be an idiot not to enjoy it either way.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You know that flash based helicopter game. You click the mouse to go up and let go to go down - and then navigate over obstacles that are getting harder and harder. That was a good game.
Another one which I haven't played in a while was this circle game. You had two circles, one within the other. Each one had a small opening and they were both spinning in the oposite directions. So what you had to do is shoot a ball through when the openings align. I payed that one for hours and hours and hours...
Not only does this phenomenon apply to games, but movies, music, comics, novels, etc never seem to be as good as they were when you were 15-25*.
This rule is applicable to everyone. How many 50 year olds do you hear say, the music in my time was bland, boring and repetitive. It all sounded the same... now this new stuff the kids are listening to, it's new, refreshing, exciting and is nothing like I've heard before.
Well, if you compare Bioshock to System Shock 2, then it does feel like it's going down hill. Sure Bioshock looks prettier, but System Shock 2 felt like it just had a better interface. That and I can't really play Bioshock on my pc without it crashing every so often. Still, SS2 offered more of an exploratory experience, where you have to piece together what hapend on this ghost ship. Bioshock seemed more centered on running around to nuke Big Daddys, resurect, and shoot them again. Bioshock is a good game but it only improves upon its predecessor through pretty graphics and a physics engine. Bioshock's depth (pun seriously not intended) isn't the same as SS2.
http://www.nuclearmonkeysoftware.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narbacular_Drop
The predecessor to Portal (Portal was written by the ND guys, Valve hired them on the spot), with all the community-created levels, has the awesome problem-solving puzzle elements of Portal without the Valve graphics. It took a couple students from DigiPen to create the unique concept that was Portal, not some internal Valve guys. I'm glad that a company with the popularity/graphics expertise of Valve could bring it to a wider audience and make it more acceptable to the general gaming public.
Just FAYI.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
...Being involved with old computers like the Sinclair Spectrum and BBC Micro, where most of the games are now easy to get hold of, I can tell you that the rose tinted view of all old games being great is just that - a rose tinted view. People remember the games they like from 'back in the day'. However, most of the games back then were dross. Only a few actually stood out. Nothing has actually changed (well, except the games are much, much more expensive in real terms now).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
While not exactly brand new, I still argue that the plot lines from Final Fantasy 10 and FEAR are extremely well thought out and is something to make you think a bit (not as much in FEAR, but at least a bit).
First, it depends on what you're looking for in a game - if you want a great story, but you've only ever played sports games and never picked up an RPG, you can't at all say that all new games suck if you aren't even looking enough or at all in the right genre.
Just because when you bought whatever console you bought (or if you bought into PC gaming) happened to have shitty games the majority of its life span (or entire life span) doesn't mean that _ALL_ new games suck. Some consoles are better for certain game genres than others. Personally, I suggest a PS2 - sports, shooters, RPG's, and a few puzzle/party games here and there. If the only thing you want is party games, go with something from Nintendo. If you like chatting with other people (read: squeaky 14 year olds) and playing games online, get an Xbox.
As a note on the 2 games I listed, if you disagree, in Final Fantasy 10, go talk the "Maechen" (the old scholar researching the world) in every area throughout the game and see why certain parties in the game are extremely hypocritical. As for FEAR, pick up every answering machine and laptop intel you can to help understand just how sick the plot is. That or just have somebody who's done that spoil it for you...
He seems to be confusing the amount of good games per year with the ratio of good games to bad ones per year.
While the odds of getting a good game through picking one at random is diminishing quickly, the number of good games is still constant (or rising). You just have to be more picky.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
The movie industry continues to crank out pretty-but-stupid after pretty-but-stupid movie. The "hey-day" of special effects has come, and then come again. Visual art is not something that is ever going to reach an absolute apex; just look at the successful games out there that do *not* use as-real-as-possible graphics; World of Warcraft, for instance.
Gameplay is, unfortunately, a far more expensive investment than graphics, with less return. It's hard to market as well; what can you say in a few words about gameplay that isn't an anecdote that everyone has already heard a dozen times ("Best gameplay in years! - PC Gamer Magazine") or simply marketing copy that we disbelieve by force of experience ("Unlimited replay value!")? On the other hand, screenshots - remember, pictures say a thousand words - are easy and can genuinely distinguish you from the competition.
I think the upshot is that 90% of games will continue to have no redeeming value, and 10% will either do the graphics so right or have the gameplay elements we crave. The 90% is the price we pay to the industry gods.
[Ego]out
Remember when we were all having fun with Portal, and Nolan said 'Pong is the best game ever, ever.', and we were like, 'No Way', and then he was like, 'I'm going to murder you'. That was great.
I married into a previously-dysfunctional family, where the males played video games, watched TV or movies all the time.
Video games don't make you dysfunctional. Did I mention my wife and I don't watch TV? Aside from our favorite football team (go packers!) and 30 Rock on Thursday nights, I don't turn on our tiny 19" TV but 2 nights a week. We play outside with our kids for an hour after dinner - I go biking with my oldest son, then we come home and go for a walk as a family. We play all sorts of outside and inside sports on the weekends. Its all about balance. I can point you to families too wrapped up in playing physical sports that their families have become dysfunctional.
There is a time and a place where video games can connect people, where other activities can not. Another example, I moved 900 miles from home to go to college, leaving behind a number of friends. We kept up to speed by playing the same MMORPG - not hardcore, but in the same guild, a lot of fun and a good way to connect.